Good evening, gentle folk, I've a bit of a story for you I like to call "A Day in the Life of an Article." I'm keeping the names out until the end, where I'll post the article history for you (it's quite short), but mine is one of those tales which often begins "pay no heed to the names here, it matters not."
When we say this, of course, we mean "the names shouldn't matter, but seriously, who's causing a ruckus now?" If there is a ruckus here, or as I fear, someone wielding something POINTy, well...I hope someone can fill me in, because I just don't see it. I've been away a bit, so if there's a cause du jour, I've missed out. If it's not some POINT or political statement, then it's awfully depressing to see.
Our story begins this morning, at 9:33am. An article stub is created consisting entirely of one sentance. The edit summary, honestly, is longer than the article - but at least it says, "adding more soon, help with reliable sources welcome." Our article creator is an experience editor, and admin of Wikipedia.
Twenty-two minutes later, it's speedy deleted under A7:Article about a company that doesn't assert significance.
About an hour later, another editor recreates it and begins again. Five editors and about 45 minutes later, we're up to four sentences, two references, one external link. Somewhere, avians are nesting in fruit trees.
The deleting admin comes back and "prod's" the article.
The prod is removed, some catagories are added and someone plays with Notability tags. Six minutes after the prod tag, the deleting admin has now filed a full AfD on this article.
Now, over the next seven hours, there's been four more edits to the article, and around thirty-six edits to the AfD (almost overwhelmingly in support). Our little article, only alive for around ten hours, has been speedied, proded and is currently rolling around AfD.
And this is what I really don't understand. Now, certainly, it could be one admin unhappy with another. It could be a dispute pouring over into a display of extreme process wonkery.
In slightly better faith, it could also be an example of education through process. It's not an uncommon theme on this list that some admins could communicate better - some seem to prefer educating other users (even fellow admins) through the blunt application of process. Not a gentle way, perhaps, but not guarenteed to cause strife...some simply shrug it off and move along.
The best faith interpretation I can come up with is someone stringently fighting cruft. True, the article was only one sentance and in its short life has only made it up to four. Sources are few and somewhat weak, and notability is iffy. But how soon is too soon? Only twenty-two minutes from creation to a speedy deletion. A bit over two hours from creation to an AfD.
Is cruft this bad? Are stub articles choking the encyclopedia? On the flip side, is our good faith really so...short? How long should we give an editor after they create an article to fully source it, establish notability, etc. How long for an admin? And if there is no window of grace in first creating an article, should someone approach the bot makers? Would it make sense to have a bot simply speedy articles under a set number of characters?
I'm concerned about this article, not because of the principles involved. Not because of the frightfully short timeline. I'm concerned because I can't see any reason to be so stringent about trying to eradicate a simple little article. Whether it be between editors, admins, or "people we expect to know better."
Because we do, don't we? We expect some people to know better. Look at the article, [Mzoli's Meats], look at the history below, and go ahead...go "oh, well, that's DIFFERENT." But really, I can't even see how different might cut it either. I just can't. Please, someone, help me understand this.
Article History (with the speedy thrown into the timeline): 14:52, September 17, 2007 Violetriga (Talk | contribs) (2,473 bytes) (+ext link) (undo) 12:13, September 17, 2007 Wikidemo (Talk | contribs) (2,206 bytes) (?Description - add material) (undo) 12:00, September 17, 2007 David Eppstein (Talk | contribs) (1,745 bytes) (?External Links - another blog entry, from Jimbo's old version) (undo) 11:54, September 17, 2007 Carcharoth (Talk | contribs) (1,610 bytes) (add three more) (undo) 11:51, September 17, 2007 ^demon (Talk | contribs) (1,529 bytes) (Nominated for deletion; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mzoli's Meats.) (undo) 11:50, September 17, 2007 Cobaltbluetony (Talk | contribs) (1,312 bytes) (dunno how the tag got back on...) (undo) 11:49, September 17, 2007 Cobaltbluetony (Talk | contribs) m (moved Mzoli's to Mzoli's Meats: full name of establishment) (undo) 11:48, September 17, 2007 EVula (Talk | contribs) (1,327 bytes) (contesting prod; I think if we give this article a bit more than a couple of hours of existence, we might have something worthwhile) (undo) 11:46, September 17, 2007 Carcharoth (Talk | contribs) (1,695 bytes) (hmm, we don't have a category on butchers, I'm not surprised) (undo) 11:46, September 17, 2007 Carcharoth (Talk | contribs) (1,717 bytes) (add categories) (undo) 11:44, September 17, 2007 ^demon (Talk | contribs) (1,645 bytes) (Proposing deletion) (undo) 11:40, September 17, 2007 Cobaltbluetony (Talk | contribs) (1,277 bytes) (notability needed according to wiki standards) (undo) 11:36, September 17, 2007 Melsaran (Talk | contribs) (1,262 bytes) ("famous"is a value judgement, and it is not really relevant anyway + doesn't add anything to the article. the fact that some sources call it famous doesn't mean that we should.) (undo) 11:34, September 17, 2007 Wikidemo (Talk | contribs) m (1,269 bytes) (restoring "famous" - source says it is; other coverage suports claim.) (undo) 11:30, September 17, 2007 Grcampbell (Talk | contribs) (1,262 bytes) (how is it famous??) (undo) 11:18, September 17, 2007 EVula (Talk | contribs) (1,269 bytes) (removing G11 tag; just because we have an article on a company doesn't mean that it is spam) (undo) 11:08, September 17, 2007 Cobaltbluetony (Talk | contribs) (1,281 bytes) (spam) (undo) 11:05, September 17, 2007 Wikidemo (Talk | contribs) m (1,269 bytes) (Undid revision 158530993 by Deb (talk) rm advertising tag - this is not written as an ad; it simply reports sourced info) (undo) 11:03, September 17, 2007 Deb (Talk | contribs) m (1,280 bytes) (tag) (undo) 11:01, September 17, 2007 Wikidemo (Talk | contribs) (1,269 bytes) (write new article; have not seen deleted version but this is new, sourced content that claims importance/notability of subject) (undo) 09:55, September 17, 2007 ^demon (Talk | contribs) deleted "Mzoli's" ? (CSD A7 (Corp): Article about a company that doesn't assert significance) 09:37, September 17, 2007 Jimbo Wales (Talk | contribs) (275 bytes) (just collecting some links as a base for writing more) (undo) 09:33, September 17, 2007 Jimbo Wales (Talk | contribs) (206 bytes) (just a stub for now, will be adding pictures and more in coming days... I need help finding reliable sources though)
InkSplotch
On 18/09/2007, InkSplotch inkblot14@gmail.com wrote:
The best faith interpretation I can come up with is someone stringently fighting cruft.
Not exactly. More like perceived commercial spam. The real deletion reason is most likely as combo of G12 and A7.
True, the article was only one sentance and in its short life has only made it up to four. Sources are few and somewhat weak, and notability is iffy. But how soon is too soon? Only twenty-two minutes from creation to a speedy deletion.
Slow. Should have been seconds.
A bit over two hours from creation to an AfD.
Means nothing. I suspect [[Gustav Weler]] should have been listed on AFD about 2 years ago but it was missed then.
Is cruft this bad? Are stub articles choking the encyclopedia?
Commercial ones yes.
On the flip side, is our good faith really so...short? How long should we give an editor after they create an article to fully source it, establish notability, etc.
That really rather depends on the ping time of the admins who happen to be active.
How long for an admin?
That should not be a question we ever have to deal with. Most people kinda understand that after getting through RFA.
And if there is no window of grace in first creating an article, should someone approach the bot makers? Would it make sense to have a bot simply speedy articles under a set number of characters?
No bots with admin powers are unpopular and things like short disambig pages can legitimately have very low numbers of characters.
I'm concerned about this article, not because of the principles involved. Not because of the frightfully short timeline. I'm concerned because I can't see any reason to be so stringent about trying to eradicate a simple little article. Whether it be between editors, admins, or "people we expect to know better."
hang out with Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam sometime
Because we do, don't we? We expect some people to know better. Look at the article, [Mzoli's Meats], look at the history below, and go ahead...go "oh, well, that's DIFFERENT." But really, I can't even see how different might cut it either. I just can't. Please, someone, help me understand this.
09:33, September 17, 2007 Jimbo Wales (Talk | contribs) (206 bytes) (just a stub for now, will be adding pictures and more in coming days... I need help finding reliable sources though)
I think you are making two errors. First Jimbo is not in the conventional sense an admin. His edit history would not get him through RFA. One of the thing RFA does fairly well is make sure that admins have a pretty good ah street level knowledge of wikipedia.You don't write articles shorter than a paragraph say 3-4 lines. There was a reason substubs were abolished. Anyone who gets through RFA will know this instinctively.
Secondly since for the most part wikipedia editors are trained rather than natural Jimbo is at a bit of a disadvantage. He's never had to go through the indoctrination and training the average wikipedian has to go through just to get by. Thus he is going to make mistakes.
If say Raul654 was getting his articles deleted straight off I would be worried. Jimbo? not so much.
On 9/17/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 18/09/2007, InkSplotch inkblot14@gmail.com wrote:
The best faith interpretation I can come up with is someone stringently fighting cruft.
Not exactly. More like perceived commercial spam.
I think there is an excess of paranoia about commercial spam. Most such articles are harmless and easily made NPOV, provided enough information is available.
-Matt
On 9/18/07, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
I think there is an excess of paranoia about commercial spam. Most such articles are harmless and easily made NPOV, provided enough information is available.
I agree entirely. This reminds me of the fiasco in which JzG blocked an editor indefinitely and without warning, for "creation of numerous articles on what appear to be generic malls" (his words). AGF isn't the only thing broken around here.
—C.W.
Are stub articles choking the encyclopedia?
There was a mention (in some essay/guideline that I cannot currently find) about how our Notability criteria has gradually relaxed over time. I think it said something like: A topic that is not considered notable/acceptable in a 10,000-articles Wikipedia, will be more likely to be notable/acceptable in a 1,000,000-articles Wikipedia.
The closest I can find is http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wiki_is_not_paper#No_size_limits
We seem to be essentially trying to limit the size of the individual projects to whatever each volunteer-base is able to somewhat-effectively manage.
The pages on Deletionism vs Inclusionism, and Immediatism vs Eventualism are also very relevant (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Philosophy).
I'd say that Deletionism is generally [[considered harmful]], but it is (sadly) tolerated, because otherwise our average article quality would plummet. We simply don't have enough people (in any language) to coordinate the 50,000,000+ articles that some Inclusionists envisage eventually existing.
e.g. [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes]] says "Cities and villages are notable, regardless of size". But there would be an enormous problem if we instantly added a stub for every village on the planet. (or every notable song/book/film/company/etc)
We can only grow as fast as we are growing (which is either too fast, or not fast enough, depending on your POV and on how you interpret the statement).
I'm just a (persistent) dabbler though, so please allow for the oversimplifications/tangents, and correct any mistakes :)
Quiddity
"But there would be an enormous problem if we instantly added a stub for every village on the planet"
There is no "we" -- most of wikipedia is written by people who are not regular contributors. If someone is motivated enough to write an article about their local eatery, they're motivated enough to maintain it.
On 9/18/07, quiddity blanketfort@gmail.com wrote:
Are stub articles choking the encyclopedia?
There was a mention (in some essay/guideline that I cannot currently find) about how our Notability criteria has gradually relaxed over time. I think it said something like: A topic that is not considered notable/acceptable in a 10,000-articles Wikipedia, will be more likely to be notable/acceptable in a 1,000,000-articles Wikipedia.
The closest I can find is http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wiki_is_not_paper#No_size_limits
We seem to be essentially trying to limit the size of the individual projects to whatever each volunteer-base is able to somewhat-effectively manage.
The pages on Deletionism vs Inclusionism, and Immediatism vs Eventualism are also very relevant (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Philosophy).
I'd say that Deletionism is generally [[considered harmful]], but it is (sadly) tolerated, because otherwise our average article quality would plummet. We simply don't have enough people (in any language) to coordinate the 50,000,000+ articles that some Inclusionists envisage eventually existing.
e.g. [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes]] says "Cities and villages are notable, regardless of size". But there would be an enormous problem if we instantly added a stub for every village on the planet. (or every notable song/book/film/company/etc)
We can only grow as fast as we are growing (which is either too fast, or not fast enough, depending on your POV and on how you interpret the statement).
I'm just a (persistent) dabbler though, so please allow for the oversimplifications/tangents, and correct any mistakes :)
Quiddity
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 9/18/07, quiddity blanketfort@gmail.com wrote:
e.g. [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes]] says "Cities and villages are notable, regardless of size". But there would be an enormous problem if we instantly added a stub for every village on the planet. (or every notable song/book/film/company/etc)
Whether or not we should add an article about a certain village has nothing to do with the size of the village, but the rather the amount of verifiable information at our disposal. Extra content only creates an "enormous problem" when it is not supported by, or does not accurately reflect,[1] our sources.
—C.W.
[1] or is in fact shamelessly plagiarized from, ... :p
On 18/09/2007, InkSplotch inkblot14@gmail.com wrote:
Good evening, gentle folk, Is cruft this bad? Are stub articles choking the encyclopedia? On the flip side, is our good faith really so...short? How long should we give an editor after they create an article to fully source it, establish notability, etc. How long for an admin? And if there is no window of grace in first creating an article, should someone approach the bot makers? Would it make sense to have a bot simply speedy articles under a set number of characters?
Stub articles and cruft seem to be sickening to wikipedians. Perhaps it is infecting the entire encyclopedia, which afterall is rather like a paper encyclopedia to most people, so it can only contain the best of everything and not propose knowledge that hasn't already been written in proper "Manual Of Style" headers with a perfect lead section.
Putting an article through the entire "deletion process" really does waste time. Why not see if you can improve on the article? Instead there are wikipedians (possibly admins) who, figuring there are too many articles which are in dire need of their personal attention to actually put time into just one, will either delete it or slap a tag on it and move on to the next presumably cruft/stub topic.
Production lines don't have intelligence; why should Wikipedia be stuck in that grain too.
Peter
To be fair, there is always a certain initial doubt about articles on what appear to be local eateries, and there is no type of article where ILIKEIT is more frequently used as an argument.
On 9/18/07, Peter Ansell ansell.peter@gmail.com wrote:
On 18/09/2007, InkSplotch inkblot14@gmail.com wrote:
Good evening, gentle folk, Is cruft this bad? Are stub articles choking the encyclopedia? On the flip side, is our good faith really so...short? How long should we give an editor after they create an article to fully source it, establish notability, etc. How long for an admin? And if there is no window of grace in first creating an article, should someone approach the bot makers? Would it make sense to have a bot simply speedy articles under a set number of characters?
Stub articles and cruft seem to be sickening to wikipedians. Perhaps it is infecting the entire encyclopedia, which afterall is rather like a paper encyclopedia to most people, so it can only contain the best of everything and not propose knowledge that hasn't already been written in proper "Manual Of Style" headers with a perfect lead section.
Putting an article through the entire "deletion process" really does waste time. Why not see if you can improve on the article? Instead there are wikipedians (possibly admins) who, figuring there are too many articles which are in dire need of their personal attention to actually put time into just one, will either delete it or slap a tag on it and move on to the next presumably cruft/stub topic.
Production lines don't have intelligence; why should Wikipedia be stuck in that grain too.
Peter
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l